I’m perfectly capable of understanding the context of a statement, such as this;
“Sorry, but I think 99% of these “emotional support” PETS are created from selfish gasbags”
While I may consider her [whoever she is] on par with Paris Hilton and her purse pooches, the majority of vitriol was directed at anyone who has a support dog.
[even I question support cats/pigs/parrots/ponies/gerbils/whatever...that was *not* the original intent of the programs]
Some of us didn’t just pick a cute critter and buy it a vest.
It’s a lot of training, hard work and investment, physical and emotional.
FWIW, in 3 years, the dog has never even been used in his appointed role.
He goes nowhere that pets aren’t already welcome.
Though I *could* legally drag him into WalMart, I do not feel that’s really appropriate or needful.
That’s why I have a husband.
Nor do I want to take advantage of the system unless absolutely necessary.
Here is the definition that jiggyboy posted for “emotional support animals:”
“For those who have been asking, here is the definition of Emotional Support Dog. An emotional support animal (ESA) is a US legal term for a pet which provides therapeutic benefit to its owner through companionship and affection. Emotional support animals are not specially trained to ameliorate disability as psychiatric service dogs are. They require only as much training as an ordinary pet requires in order to live peacefully among humans without being a nuisance or a danger to others.”
I think that under this definition, another valid term for “emotional support animal” is “house pet.”
Now, you claim to have invested long, arduous hours in training your animal. I've trained my own dogs into marvelous, well-behaved house pets, and it is not a long, arduous task. So, the reader may conclude either that you're doing something very different than what is described above, or that it just took you a long time with great difficulty to train a house pet. In fact, you mention that your own service animal helps you with balance while you stand and walk, which suggests the animal has been trained a good ways beyond a regular pet, and is more akin to a traditional service animal than an "emotional support animal."
I don't think anyone would begrudge someone bringing along a dog who helps keep him/her upright has he/she walks. I think that most of us would regard such an animal as a traditional service dog, even if the dog's owner was able to train the dog on his/her own, resulting in significant cost savings.
Which brings us to the final question: Should folks generally be permitted to bring their house pets aboard passenger flights? I've never given it much thought. I imagine there are probably good reasons for avoiding cabins full of dogs (and cats? are cats included?), and thus, no, folks generally should not be permitted to bring their house pets aboard passenger flights.
Thus, the conclusion is, if most “emotional support animals” fall under the rubric provided above, then, no, folks shouldn't be permitted to take them places where ordinary folks may not take their house pets.
sitetest